Does Joseph
Smith contradict the Book of Mormon on the doctrine of God?

Does Joseph Smith contradict the
Three Witnesses on the doctrine of God?

Does the Book of Mormon teach the
plurality of Gods?

Does the Book of Mormon contradict
Joseph Smith's First Vision?

Does the Book of Mormon condemn
polygamy?

CHAPTER XXIII

An Answer to Budvarson's
Criticisms
of the Book of Mormon (Cont'd)

In continuation of his attack, Budvarson attempts to prove (pages
31-35) that Joseph Smith contradicts the Book of Mormon or that, vice versa, the Book of
Mormon contradicts Joseph Smith. These alleged contradictions have to do with the
doctrine of God as taught by the prophet and the Nephite scripture. Budvarson first
quotes from Joseph Smith's "The King Follett Discourse" as reported in President
Joseph Fielding Smith's The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,pages 345 and 346:

. . . I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have
imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea,
and take away the veil, so that you may see.... It is the first principle of the
Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, . . . and that he was once a man like
us; . . .

By these "unbelievable remarks," so Budvarson contends,
"Joseph Smith is not only in violent disagreement with the teachings of the Bible,
but he is also confuting the teachings concerning God in the Book of Mormon."
Inasmuch as Budvarson doesn't undertake to show just how Joseph Smith is in "violent
disagreement" with the Bible, we feel under no obligation to answer him on the point
except to deny his assertion. Joseph Smith was often in "violent
disagreement" with sectarian notions about the teachings of the Bible. So were
the ancient prophets and Jesus at odds with the "professionals" in their
generation. And, Mr. Budvarson, are all of you "true Christians" (page 19)
in such agreement about the teaching of the Bible concerning God as to be able to present
a united front on

Page 216

the subject? Now, to show that Joseph Smith is also
"confuting the teaching concerning God in the Book of Mormon," Budvarson cites
these words:

"For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and
forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing? . . . and
if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be
an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you, he changeth not; if so he would
cease to be God;" [Morm. 9:9, 19]

"For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable
being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity." [Moro. 8:18]

Well, Mr. Budvarson, if you think these scriptures are
"confuted" by Joseph Smith's teachings that God was not God from all eternity
and that "he was once a man like us," your logic quite escapes us. For if
God, aeons and aeons ago, was a mortal like us, and, under divine providence (the
patriarchal order of Gods) and guidance, lived, died, progressed, and was resurrected and
became a God, then Mormon's words which you cite apply to him only after he became the
God of the universe (or universes) to which we belong. As our God he is, of
course, a god of law and order, "the same yesterday, today, and forever," one in
whom "there is no variableness neither shadow of changing." Mormon knew
that God had become such ages ago, eternities as man views it; hence he could say, knowing
God to be just and a follower of law and order, "he is unchangeable from all eternity
to all eternity." Your "dear Mormon people" will be highly
unimpressed by your arguments at this point, Mr. Budvarson.

In Budvarson's next illustration (pages 32-33), he undertakes to
show that Joseph Smith not only contradicts the Book of Mormon, but the "Three
Witnesses" to it as well. He does this by showing that "Joseph Smith
taught the doctrine of the 'plurality of gods,"' and then he cites

Page 217

passages from the Book of Mormon which he alleges are contradictory
to it. The prophet "openly ridiculed those who stood firm to the Bible
revelation that there is only One God," says Budvarson. Again he quotes
from Pres. Smith's The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,pages 370 and 372:

I will preach on the plurality of Gods.... I have always
declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage
from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and
these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.... Many men
say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one God! I say
that is a strange God anyhow three in one, and one in three! It is a curious
organization . . . All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism. It
would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a giant or a monster.

These quotations are now compared with two quotations from the Book
of Mormon:

. . . And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only
and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God
. . . (2 Nephi 31:21. Italics ours. )

. . . and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ
the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God . . . (Alma
11:44)

To these Budvarson adds this part of the statement of the
"Three Witnesses":

. . . And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the
Holy Ghost, which is one God.

And to these quotations Budvarson adds this comment: "These
glaring contradictions make one wonder if Joseph Smith had ever read the Book of Mormon,
even though he claimed to be the 'Author and Proprietor' of it."

Now, Mr. Budvarson, in view of your criticisms, why

Page 218

didn't you answer in some detail Joseph Smith's declaration that the
Bible shows there are a plurality of Gods? And while you were at it, why didn't you
quote from pages 370-371 in The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph
Smiththese words:

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. [1 Cor. 8:5] I want to
set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God--that is pertaining
to us; and he is in all and through all. [Cf. 1 Cor. 8:6.]

In your quotations from the Book of Mormon and from the "Three
Witnesses" you completely fail, as you usually do, to understand the real meaning
behind them. You are a wonder at quoting the letter, but a complete loss at
understanding the spirit of scripture.

And he said, Unto you [the disciples] it is given to know the
mysteries of the kingdom of God: but to others in parables; that seeing they might
not see, and hearing they might not understand. (Luke 8:10)

The Book of Mormon writers you cite, Mr. Budvarson, and the
"Three Witnesses" all speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost as being
"one" God for the one and very same reason. Let us explain. You will
remember how Jesus prayed during his earthly ministry that his disciples might be
"one" even as he and his father were one:

Holy Father, keep through shine own name those whom thou hast given
me, that they may be one, as we [are one]; (John 17:11. Italics ours.)

Now, Mr. Budvarson, in what sense did Jesus intend that all of his
disciples should be "one"? Well, obviously he meant that they should be a
unity in the faith, being one in mind, spirit and objectives. Just as he and his
Father to whom he prayed were separate beings, yet "one" in mind and spirit, so
he desired his disciples, individual portals, to be "one" with them. (See John
17: 20-21.)

Page 219

The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are "one" (1 John 5:7) in
this spiritual sense but are three distinct personages. The Book of Mormon writers,
the "Three Witnesses," and Joseph Smith understood these fundamental principles
alike. Hence Joseph Smith was not contradicting the Book of Mormon and the
"Three Witnesses," as you so confidently assert. The trouble is, Mr.
Budvarson, that you didn't do your "homework" before you started to write.
We suggest that you read our Chapter VI, particularly the last part, "Are God the
Father and His Son One God?" and learn how Joseph Smith explains the
"oneness" of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, not to mention those who believe
in them and keep their commandments. The glaring contradictions you speak of, Mr.
Budvarson, only demonstrate your "glaring" misunderstanding of Mormon scripture
and doctrine.

Budvarson continues to exhibit his lack of understanding of our
doctrine of God in his pages 33 and 34. He finds it interesting to discover that the
Book of Mormon, which is said to contain the "fulness of the everlasting
gospel," does not "teach the doctrine of the 'plurality of gods,' nor that 'men
may become gods.' The doctrine of the Book of Mormon concerning God is
monotheistic-- One God." Then he quotes from Ether 2:7-8 and Alma 11:
26-31, 39 in which are contained such statements as "the true and only God,"
"Is there more than one God? And he answered, No" and the like.
"Yet," says Budvarson, "even in the face of these clear teachings in
the Book of Mormon, the Mormon church teaches the doctrines of Joseph Smith concerning the
'plurality of God' and that the ultimate goal for men in the Mormon Church is to become
gods!" In our last chapter we have already pointed out Budvarson's
misunderstanding of what is meant by the Book of Mormon containing the "fulness of
the everlasting gospel." Morover, we have already pointed out in this chapter
why the Book of Mormon writers speak of God

Page 220

the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost as "one" God, when
actually they understood them to be three distinct beings. But if you want a special
demonstration of this fact, Mr. Budvarson, we'll give it to you. In 1 Nephi 10: 17
we are told that Nephi wanted to have a vision similar to his father Lehi's vision
"by the power of the Holy Ghost." Furthermore, the Holy Ghost gave him his
desire, as recorded in 1 Nephi 11: 1-12. Nephi says:

. . . I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was
in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he
spoke unto me as a man speaketh with another. (1 Nephi 11:11)

Nephi speaks his wonderment at the privilege of conversing with the
Spirit as one man to another. So here is one member of the Godhead identified, Mr.
Budvarson. Now turn to 3 Nephi 11:13-15 and learn how upwards of twenty-five hundred
men, women and children (3 Nephi 17:25) had the privilege not only of seeing the
resurrected Christ, but also of feeling the wounds in His side and the prints in His hands
and feet. That makes two members of the Godhead identified. Read also Ether
12:39, where Moroni records that he saw Jesus and talked with him "face to
face." Now to identify God the Father as the third member of the Godhead.
As Jesus descended to meet the Nephites they heard his Father utter these words:

If this isn't enough to distinguish the Father as a distinct being,
turn to 3 Nephi 19:20-24, 27-29 where Jesus prays earnestly to his Father. Obviously
the Father is a distinct being; Jesus wouldn't pray to himself! Incidentally, notice
the "oneness" Jesus prays for in verse 29. You see, the Nephites did
understand the fact that the

Page 221

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were three distinct beings, three Gods;
yet they refer to these three beings, one in spirit and purpose, as the "true and
only God." And the Mormon people commonly do the same thing today. And
remember Joseph Smith's words as recorded in Smith, The Teachings
of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pages370-371:

I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there
is but one God--that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. (Cf. D
& C 88:41.)

You have said (page 34), Mr. Budvarson, "it is simply not
possible to reconcile Joseph Smith's doctrine of God with what is stated in the Book of
Mormon on the subject. They are direct contradictions!" But it is
possible to reconcile the teachings of Joseph Smith with the Nephite record. They
are not contradictions, as we have shown. After all, Mr. Budvarson, you are treading
on our ground. We know our scriptures and doctrine better than you. Apparently
it is not given to you "to know the mysteries of the kingdom"; they seem to you
to be "parables" (Luke 8:10), for you apparently haven't made a thorough attempt
to understand them. We say this in as kindly a spirit as we can. You are
misrepresenting Mormon beliefs and doctrines in your brochure. Again we say that you
are "out of your depth" in writing about the Book of Mormon.

Budvarson continues his attack (pages 34 and 35) by attempting to
show that the Book of Mormon contradicts Joseph Smith's story that he saw in his first
great vision of God the Father and his only Begotten Son. He supports this strange
"contradiction" which he has drummed up by an appeal to three passages found on
pages 25 and 28 of the First (1830) Edition of the Book of Mormon. Here they are:

"Now," says Budvarson, "if Jesus Christ is God the
Eternal Father according to these quotations from the Book of Mormon, how could Joseph
Smith have seen 'two personages'?"

Well, actually, Mr. Budvarson, our Lord is spoken of in the Book of
Mormon in a special sense as the "Father," but it in no sense implies that
Joseph Smith could not have seen "two Personages" in his first vision.
Read our Chapter VI, "The Twofold Problem of Mosiah 15:1-4: Is Jesus the
'Father and the Son'? Are God the Father and His Son one God?" But coming
more directly to the point, we repeat in part what we said in an earlier chapter (XXII)
that the three readings which you cite did not agree with the original manuscript used in
the printing of the First Edition. Consequently, in subsequent editions of the Book
of Mormon issued during Joseph Smith's lifetime, corrections were made in the printing to
make it conform with the original reading. Hence the present readings:

Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God.

* * *

Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!

* * *

. . . and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God, . . .

That these readings are the correct ones is shown by the Oliver
Cowdery manuscript now in the possession of the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints at Independence, Missouri.

In light of these plain facts, Mr. Budvarson, how can you so twist
and contort them as to say

Page 223

this blunder [i.e., the readings cited in the First Edition] was
discovered, but of course the story of the fourteen-year-old boy, Joseph Smith, who
claimed he saw two personages, could not be disputed or discredited, for the foundation of
the Mormon church rests upon his "story." Nevertheless, something had to
be done. They simply changed the Book of Mormon!

Budvarson wouldn't run true to the ways of critics of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints without taking a dig at the doctrine of
"polygamy" in his pages 35-37. His attack is somewhat different in
approach in that the Book of Mormon is brought more strongly into the picture. He
quotes at length from the Doctrine and Covenants132:1,
4, 6, 37, 61-62, relating to the "new and everlasting covenant" and the
plurality of wives. After pointing out that those who have the law revealed to them
must obey it (verse 4), Budvarson says:

Here indeed is a very peculiar situation, because according to some
of Joseph Smith's other "revelations," this same "Mormon god" declared
that the "fulness of the everlasting gospel" was contained in the Book of
Mormon, and yet the Book of Mormon condemns the practice of plurality of wives and calls
it an "abomination" before the Lord God.

To prove his point Budvarson quotes extensively from Jacob 1:15;
2:23-24; 3:5; Mosiah 11:2 in the Book of Mormon, including such strong statements as
these:

Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which
thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord. (Jac. 2: 24)

* * *

And he had many wives and concubines. And he did cause his
people to commit sin, and do that which was abominable in the sight of the Lord. (Most
11:2)

Budvarson concludes:

What a predicament to be in! The person who does not abide the
"new and everlasting covenant" is damned

Page 224

according to the "revelation" given in the Doctrine and
Covenants. Yet, the person who keeps the "new and everlasting covenant,"
or the "law of the priesthood" as it is also designated, and has "ten
virgins given unto him by this law" is indulging in wicked practices and is not
keeping the commandments of God, but is an abomination in His sight! And this
according to the teaching of the Book of Mormon!

In other words, Budvarson is making a point of showing how
completely inconsistent and contrary the Book of Mormon teaching on the plurality of wives
is with Joseph Smith's other revelations on the subject. And offhand it would appear
that his point is well taken. But here, again, Budvarson leaves out vital evidence
and comes to a wrong conclusion. One would think that he would give Joseph Smith and
other Mormon leaders just a little credit [or having some common sense and good judgment.
Our Church wouldn't have attracted to its ranks hundreds and thousands of
intelligent men and women if its leaders had et forth scriptures which were not consistent
with each ether in their spiritual appeal and in their doctrines. So where has
Budvarson missed the point in the issue at hand?

Let Budvarson be reminded that the Book of Mormon [early teaches
that the Nephites were commanded by the Lord not to have "save it were one wife, and
concubines hey should have none." (Jac. 3: 5) And Joseph Smith aid, "I
have constantly said no man shall have but one wife at a time, unless the Lord directs
otherwise.''1 So Jacob and other Book of
Mormon prophets speak in strong terms to their people because they had been forbidden by
he Lord to have plural wives. Jacob wanted to emphasize he sins of his people in
failing to keep the Lord's commandments and therefore had a tendency to stress the
misdemeanors of David and Solomon. The acts of David and Solomon in taking wives and
concubines were not abominable before the Lord until they broke his law governing

Page 225

plural marriage. When David had Uriah killed and took over
this loyal man's wife Bathsheba, the Lord was, of course, indignant and commanded his
servant, Nathan the prophet, to rebuke him. Could Jacob have been ignorant of these
words of Nathan to David?

And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy
bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that were too little, then
would I add unto thee so much more. (2 Sam. 12:8. Jewish Publication Society translation.)

We doubt it. Nor is Jacob very likely to have been ignorant of
the words condemning Solomon for taking foreign wives who turned his heart to other gods,
as found in the Book of Kings:

Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, besides the daughter of
Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites; of the
nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel: "Ye shall
not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your
heart after their gods"; Solomon did cleave unto these in love. (1 Kings 11:1-2.
Jewish Publication Society translation.)

This passage is self-explanatory. We conclude, then, that
Jacob was simply denouncing plural marriage among the Nephites; his references to
David and Solomon had to do with their abominations in violating the principles of plural
marriage as understood by the ancient Hebrews. He used these violations to drive
home the lesson he was giving to his own people. That Jacob was not condemning
plural marriage as a principle, but only because it had been forbidden among his own
people, is shown by these words:

For if I will, saith the Lord of hosts, raise up seed unto me, I
will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:30)

Now, Mr. Budvarson, why did you not acquaint your-

Page 226

self with this verse and Joseph Smith's words that plural marriage
was not to be entered into "unless the Lord directs otherwise"?
Intelligent Mormons didn't realize that there was any inconsistency between Joseph
Smith's teachings in the Doctrine and Covenantsand
that in the Book of Mormon on plural marriage until you and others like you asserted it on
very poor grounds.